Mudd Descendants visit Fort Jefferson NP

[Houmes]

(07-29-2015 07:13 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  There are only two sources (that I know of) that espouse the idea that there was any sort of password/sign countersign. They are Finis Bates and Frederick Demond.

Let's be clear, Finis Bates was the first person to claim that there was a sign and countersign at the Navy Yard bridge. He claimed to have received this realization from John St. Helen aka "John Wilkes Booth". According to St. Helen, he was told by Vice President Johnson to use the sign "T.B." and "T.B. Road" in order to get over the Navy Yard bridge without incident. This is the story that Bates includes in his book. As we all know, John St. Helen was not John Wilkes Booth and therefore the entire story was fictional. Either St. Helen or Bates, is lying.

Bates, the crafty man that he is, doubles down on the fictional password scenario however. He attempts to prove its legitimacy by providing two statements. One of them is a newspaper article from 1897 from David Dana. Dana commanded the troops of the 13th NY Cavalry and stationed his men at Bryantown. It was to Dana that George Mudd, reported the arrival of two strangers to his cousin, Dr. Samuel Mudd's, farm. Sadly, Dana sat on this information for some time before sending men out to investigate. Therefore Dana would have had a good, and true, story to tell in 1897. However, in addition to painting himself in a far more heroic light, Dana's 1897 account also added a new, and suspect, story.

According to Dana in 1897:

Quote: "On Friday, April 14, 1865, two men appeared before the guard on the road leading into Washington from the east. Refusing to give their names or state their business, they were arrested and put in the guard tent, whence they were to be sent to headquarters. This was about 1 o'clock in the afternoon. In an hour or two they gave their names as Booth and Herold."

While it is thought that David Herold was in Southern Maryland on the night of April 13th, and therefore would be making his way back into D.C. on the morning of the 14th, it is well established that Booth was in Washington, D.C. all day on April 14th until his escape. David Dana is once again either embellishing his story or the passage of thirty two years has caused understandable errors in his memory.

But here's my favorite part. Not only does Bates spend an entire chapter of his book supporting and attempting to convince us all that David Dana is supporting the claims made by John St. Helen, but, in the very next chapter, Bates is attempting to prove that David Dana had prior knowledge of Lincoln's assassination. Bates writes, "In this connection I challenge to the conduct of Gen. Dana, as we left him at Bryantown resting under the seeming shadows of treacherous conduct..." It is important to note that David Dana died in 1906, and that Bates published his book one year later, in 1907. It's easier to libel a dead man who can't defend himself.

Thus far however, all Bates has "proven" is that John St. Helen's story meshes with part of Dana's dated narrative. Dana, however, makes NO mention of any password or countersign. Bates claims this is because Dana was party to the assassination plot and therefore withheld admitting this piece. In order to "prove" St. Helen's password story, Bates relies on Demond.

A few years back while researching the files of Fred Black at Oakland University, I was allowed to photocopy all of his files dealing with the Enid mummy. It quickly became apparent that Finis Bates played fast and loose with the facts, browbeat Blanche DeBar Booth into signing an affidavit she later repudiated, and wrote his book ascribing facts supplied by various individuals which were not in the letters they returned to answer his query letters sent to them. I have copies of three letters from December 28, 1897, January 17, 1898, and February 17, 1898, from Gen. Dana to Bates diplomatically correcting him on his interpretation of the assassination and pursuit of Booth. None of the letters mention crossing the bridge, and focus instead on the tintype of the alleged John St. Helen and which leg Booth broke. The actor Joseph Jefferson replied to Bates in a letter dated 1903, advising him the tintype looked nothing like John Wilkes Booth, yet Finis Bates did not include Jefferson's letter in his book and on the contrary stated Jefferson had dramatically claimed the image was Booth.

Finis Bates was a scoundrel.